And where is the CCTV footage that could help establish what happened inside the station? Two journalists allege they were assaulted at Delhi’s Saket Police Station.

They allege the assault intensified after police learnt they were Muslim. Teesta Setalvad speaks with Shaheen Khan and Nafeesa Khan about journalism, their experience as Muslim women, their rights as citizens, and the unanswered questions around CCTV footage and police accountability.

The post They Asked Questions. Then Came the Assault: Shaheen & Nafeesa Khan | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Press Club of India, along with the Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Press Association and Kerala Union of Working Journalists, issued a joint statement on September 3 condemning the alleged assault and seeking action against police personnel posted at Saket Police Station, including the Station House Officer (SHO).

The Press Club of India, Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists,
Press Association, and Kerala Union of Working Journalist strongly condemn and
call for punitive action against Delhi Police officials posted at the Saket Police Station,
including the Station House… pic.twitter.com/aC7P19Hbkw

— Press Club of India (@PCITweets) September 3, 2026

Subsequently, the NWMI and the Editors Guild of India also issued separate statements expressing solidarity with the two journalists and calling for an investigation into the allegations. The NWMI demanded that the police personnel allegedly involved be suspended pending inquiry, while the Editors Guild sought an immediate independent and unbiased probe and strict action if the allegations were substantiated.

The Network of Women in Media, India unequivocally condemns the brutal assault on Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan, both journalists with 4pm News, and demands strict action against the police personnel involved. pic.twitter.com/Tju6M6egom

— NWMIndia (@NWM_India) September 5, 2026

What the journalists alleged

Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan, associated with digital news platform 4PM News Network, were covering the inauguration of a new wing at Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital in Saket on September 3. The event was attended by Union Home Minister Amit Shah and Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta.

According to the journalists and statements subsequently issued by press organisations, the two were stopped by police personnel near the venue when they sought to ask questions as part of their journalistic coverage.

The journalists alleged that they were manhandled and taken to Saket Police Station. They further alleged that they were subsequently taken to a room inside the police station and assaulted by police personnel, including women officers.

According to the NWMI statement, the journalists had sought to ask questions during the event, including queries concerning an alleged cycle scam. NWMI stated that the journalists were allegedly handled roughly near the venue and later beaten at Saket Police Station. It further referred to the journalists’ allegation that the assault intensified after police personnel became aware that both women were Muslim and that religion-specific abuses were allegedly used.

We demand that the police personnel involved in the assault be suspended pending inquiry.

Such attacks on journalists are unconstitutional and against freedom of the press, which is an essential part of freedom of expression.https://t.co/LMuXFhq2nQ

— NWMIndia (@NWM_India) September 5, 2026

On September 5, the Editors Guild of India similarly stated that the journalists had alleged that they were manhandled and taken away in a police vehicle after attempting to pose a question to Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta. According to the Guild’s statement, the two alleged that they were beaten by women police officials at Saket Police Station and subjected to abuse targeting their religion.

Statement on Assault on Women Journalists by Delhi Police pic.twitter.com/cecTcQKjKU

— Editors Guild of India (@IndEditorsGuild) September 5, 2026

Videos circulated by the journalists and their organisation showed injury marks and bruises on their bodies. The allegations led to statements of condemnation and demands for action from several journalists’ organisations.

Delhi Police denies allegations

Delhi Police has, however, rejected the allegations of assault and religious targeting.

According to the police version, the two journalists were briefly detained after allegedly obstructing or violating a designated VVIP route near the event venue. Police officials have described the allegations of assault and religious targeting as “factually incorrect”, “misleading” and baseless.

Reports quoting South Delhi police officials stated that the journalists were asked to move from the designated VVIP security route and were taken to the police station following an altercation. The police have maintained that no physical assault took place.

The Editors Guild of India, while referring to the police version, stated that Delhi Police had maintained that the journalists were removed because of an allegedly improperly parked scooter and obstruction of access. The Guild nevertheless sought an independent and unbiased examination of the allegations.

Thus, the circumstances surrounding the incident remain disputed, with the journalists alleging assault and religious targeting during their detention and Delhi Police denying the allegations.

Press Club and journalists’ organisations seek action

In its joint statement, the Press Club of India, along with the Indian Women’s Press Corps, Delhi Union of Journalists, Press Association and Kerala Union of Working Journalists, called for punitive action against police personnel allegedly involved in the incident.

The organisations urged Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar to ensure a free and fair investigation into the allegations and called upon the Press Council of India to take suo motu cognisance of the matter and conduct an independent inquiry.

The statement was issued by Press Club of India President Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty and Secretary General Afzal Imam and was supported by the four journalists’ organisations.

NWMI demands suspension pending inquiry

In its statement issued on September 5, the Network of Women in Media, India unequivocally condemned the alleged assault on Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan and expressed solidarity with the two journalists.

NWMI urged the Delhi Police Commissioner to investigate the conduct of the police officers allegedly involved and demanded that the personnel accused of assault be suspended pending inquiry. The organisation stated that attacks on journalists were inconsistent with freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Editors Guild seeks independent and unbiased probe

The Editors Guild of India also strongly condemned the detention and alleged assault of Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan by Delhi Police personnel attached to Saket Police Station.

The Guild referred to the journalists’ allegations that they were manhandled near the event venue, taken to the police station and assaulted by women police officials. It also noted the allegations concerning religion-specific abuse.

Referring to the injury marks shown by the journalists in videos, the Editors Guild called for an immediate independent and unbiased investigation into the allegations.

The Guild demanded strict action against police personnel if the allegations against them were substantiated. The statement was issued by Editors Guild of India President Sanjay Kapoor and General Secretary Raghavan Srinivasan.

Demand for CCTV footage and legal action

Following the incident, the journalists and representatives of 4PM News Network sought the preservation and release of CCTV footage from Saket Police Station.

The journalists have maintained that CCTV footage could establish what transpired inside the police station. Reports stated that Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan, along with their editor Sanjay Sharma, were considering approaching the Delhi High Court seeking preservation and production of the relevant CCTV footage.

According to reports, Sharma said that the police personnel found responsible should face action and that the CCTV footage should be made available for examination.

Background

The incident took place during the inauguration of a new wing at Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital in Saket. Shaheen Khan and Nafisa Khan have said they were present in the area for journalistic coverage of the event and had sought to question the Delhi Chief Minister.

Their allegations of detention and assault emerged through videos and social media posts on September 3, following which the Press Club of India and several other journalists’ organisations issued statements demanding accountability.

The Network of Women in Media, India issued its statement on September 5, followed by the Editors Guild of India’s demand for an independent and unbiased inquiry. The statements by the organisations have collectively called for an examination of the allegations, accountability for police personnel if wrongdoing is established and protection of journalists carrying out their professional duties.

Delhi Police has maintained that the journalists were detained because of an alleged obstruction of the designated VVIP route and has denied allegations of physical assault and religious targeting. 

The differing accounts have made an independent inquiry, including examination of available CCTV footage and other evidence, central to the demands raised by the journalists and press bodies.

Related

Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim

Maharashtra’s schools are struggling to survive as students protest, infrastructure crumbles and Marathi-medium institutions disappear

3,404 SIR Forms Found at Kharghar Xerox Shop: CJP, VFD and BCS demands answers from Maharashtra SEC

Allahabad HC quashes NSA detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, questions ‘concocted’ State narrative in Noida workers’ protest case

Six-year-old detained during Patna teacher aspirants’ protest, parents allege police assault

The post Press bodies condemn alleged assault on women journalists at Saket Police Station, seek inquiry and action appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A country of 1.48 billion people, confronting questions of unemployment, economic opportunity, human development, inequality, institutional accountability, caste and communal issues and human rights, is spending enormous public attention on the actions of women who lived centuries ago. There is something deeply revealing about the manner in which Brahminical elites evoke Rajput or Muslim history to gain media attention, employ them to duel against each other and keep public focus away from current issues. 

This is not an argument that history is unimportant. Quite the opposite. History matters precisely because it deserves to be understood properly, with context, evidence and respect for the people who lived it.

But history should not become a substitute for governance. As I have argued previously in SabrangIndia, the political manufacture and amplification of historical controversies can serve as a convenient substitute for difficult questions about governance and accountability. When citizens are encouraged to fight over competing versions of the past, attention can move away from the performance of the state in the present. When History Substitutes Governance: Hindutva’s Politics of Manufacturing Pasts . By shifting the goalpost from the Government’s misrule to the choices of 13th-century Rajput women, who ultimately benefit from Swara’s intervention is hardly a riddle. 

1. Main Wapas Aunga and Padmaavat: Same Tragedies, Different Reactions 

Padmaavat and Main Wapas Aunga are two films. Their interpretations belong to their respective directors and makers. Neither represents the viewpoint of the communities whose victims they portray. 

The scene from Main Wapas Aunga showing the character played by Dolly Ahluwalia slitting throats of her daughters and female relatives, is a reminder of the events from Toha Khalsa involving Sikh women during Partition-era riots. The movie was loved by the so-called liberals and this painful scene drew empathy. 

Historian Saquib Salim remarked “Recently a movie, ‘Main Vaapas Aaunga’ was released & admired by people on the left liberal spectrum for getting everything correct.” He also wrote, “What I cannot understand is how come the same set of people think that committing Jauhar was bad but slitting the throat was alright.”

It is ironic that the same set of people who empathise with the 20th century Sikh women of Partition-era and the extreme steps taken by them, simultaneously dismiss similar choices made by the 13th century Rajput women by invoking modern yardsticks of feminism. 

This accentuates caste-based prejudice against the people of Rajput origin within sections of the so-called liberal discourse, while also betraying an erosion of the very liberal ethos that claims to oppose such prejudice and discrimination. This is the double standard that deserves scrutiny. If a woman facing the threat of sexual violence and captivity can be understood historically as an agent who made an extreme decision under extreme circumstances at Toha Khalsa, why must the Rajput woman who confronted a comparable threat century earlier necessarily be imagined as a passive victim without agency?

Hence, this article strives to educate both Hindutva rabble-rousers and Bhaskar’s apologists about Jauhar and related medieval tragedies. 

2. Rajput’s Jauhar to Samurai’s Jigai: Not Unique events

A few days back, Kshatriya Parishad, a New Delhi based Rajput organization issued a statement titled “Our Memory of Jauhar Is No Political Tool”. Condemning the usage of Jauhar for communal polarisation, it recounted certain instances of Jauhars involving Muslim women. 

In 1682, the Mughal prince Muhammad Azam Shah (who would later become Emperor) entrusted the safety of his wife, Jahanzeb Banu Begum, to Rao Aniruddh Hada of Bundi. However, when a huge Maratha army had surrounded Jahanzeb Banu’s camp, she called upon Aniruddh Hada and confided that if their small army failed and capture seemed inevitable, she would kill herself. 

Historian K. S. Lal, in Twilight of the Sultanate (1963, p. 269), records that “Jauhar was prevalent both in the north and the south. During Timur’s invasion Muslim women also performed Jauhar when Bhatnir was sacked.”

In 1301, Muslim Mongol soldiers of Allaudin Khilji led by Muhammad Shah (called Mahimashahi by Hammīra-Mahākāvya ) rebelled against the Sultan and along with their families took refuge in Ramthambore, ruled by Chauhan rajput Hammirdeva. During the siege of Ranthambore, when Hammīra offered him an opportunity to leave the besieged fort with his family, Muhammad Shah returned home and killed the members of his household rather than allow them to fall into enemy hands. Michael Bednar has interpreted this episode as potentially representing a Muslim equivalent of Jauhar. The same narrative subsequently describes Hammīra’s wives performing Jauhar before the final battle.

Jauhar among Rajput women had a similar analogy in Jigai among medieval Samurai women of Japan. While Rajput and Samurai women gave names to these events, such wartime suicides were ubiquitous part of medieval history. The fall of Deeg Fort in 1776, caused all three Jat queens of Raja Ranjit Singh of Bharatpur, commit suicide to evade capture. 

Far from being a Hindu-Muslim phenomenon, Jauhar and its similar instances were unique to all warrior communities across the world. On the other hand, sedentary and mercantile Hindu communities like Brahmans or Banias never saw such instances unlike Muslim women because they were not viewed as political threats. 

3. Rajput Queens Hapless Sans Agency? Or, rulers and Warriors. 

Karnawati Hada, widow of Rana Sanga, was the de facto ruler of Mewar for her last seven years and was associated with the defence of Chittor during its siege by Gujarat forces. Her eventual participation in Jauhar after the defeat of the fort cannot simply be reconciled with the image of a woman who possessed no political agency. 

Jawahirdevi, another widow of Rana Sanga, is remembered as having died fighting on the battlefield. 

Rani Durgavati Chandel, widow of Dalpat Shah of Garha-Katanga, personally led her forces against the Mughals. When defeat became unavoidable and capture appeared imminent, she chose death rather than surrender. 

Another Rajput ruler, Karnavati of Garhwal provides an illuminating contrast. The widow of Mahipat Shah Parmar successfully resisted Mughal forces, defeated a Mughal commander and negotiated with the Mughal emperor. She did not take her own life because her circumstances were different: she had not reached a situation in which capture appeared inevitable. 

Noted Ambedkarite and Human Rights activist Vidyabhushan Rawat writes “Well, I would like to state a few points here about how the liberals or so-called Brahmanical feminists are missing the point. There are numerous examples of Rajput women fighting bravely for their territories in Rajasthan itself and leading from the front. It is not merely in Rajasthan; we have examples elsewhere too, including Uttarakhand, where people still remember Tilu Rauteli and her bravery.” 

These women discussed above, were widows who went on to administer their kingdoms and command their armies for years after the deaths of their husbands. If, as some of Swara Bhaskar’s apologists argue, Sati and Jauhar were essentially the same practice, then a simple question follows: why did these women not commit Sati upon their husbands’ deaths? Why did they continue to rule, administer their territories and lead their armies, only to die later in the context of warfare and impending capture? 

Conclusion:

The above examples discussed in this article are absent from the narration of those dominating the discourse on either side. This reinforces the fact that those driving and controlling the discourse on the subject on both sides, clearly lack any genuine scholarship and authority on it. 

It also deserves an analysis as to why only Muslim and Rajput histories are subjected to such repeated controversies by those dominating the political and intellectual ecosystems. Why are Brahmin and Maratha history left out? Why are not the crimes of Peshwas in North India discussed? Why is Shivaji’s imposition by Hindutva in Uttarakhand and Bihar over their own local history not questioned? 

The Brahmin elite’s strong dominance across public institutions and influential platforms is an incontrovertible fact. However, it is barely debated how such dominance fosters a sense of authority and arrogance over how the histories, identities and narratives on non-Brahmin communities are framed, discussed and controlled. The right-wing Brahmin intellectual appropriation of Jauhar as a vehicle for anti-Muslim discourse is, in turn, complemented by an allegedly liberal Brahmin tendency to belittle or de-legitimise Rajput history and memory. The growing tendency to superficially compare these medieval Rajput women (without knowing their own historical roles) against Rani Lakshmibai, an 18th-century figure living in a very different historical context, and consequently diminish them, reflects that very assertion.

Lastly, the selective usage of medieval Muslim or medieval Rajput history is a deliberation to alienate these two communities — using one community’s history against the other, while those employing them and presenting their ignorant opinions on public platforms garner social and political benefits without any responsibility. However, it also damages the nation at large – as it helps, the Government keep citizens diverted to dodge accountability on tangible current issues affecting all citizens across India. 

Related:

RSS ideologues ‘wrong’; Sati wasn’t product of ‘Muslim’ rule, it existed in ancient India too

Bollywood epic Padmavaat has emerged out of the mists of legend to divide Indian society

“Communalisation” of Indian history around Padmavati, a fictitious character, has colonial roots: Irfan Habib

The post Jauhar & the Politics of Distraction: How the Right and so-called liberals often complement each other appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“Muslim women are not objects to be locked away in rooms or told where they can and cannot go. We have agency, autonomy, and every right to participate fully in public life,” said the statement by Bebaak released on social media. “What is especially concerning is that such views are being expressed from a position of religious scholarship. When influential religious figures promote restrictions on women, it can reinforce regressive ideas within the community. But let us be clear: Maulanas and Muftis do not represent all Muslims, nor do they speak for Islam in its entirety.

The Bebaak statement also states, “More importantly, we must recognise how statements like these are used to play dirty politics in the name of Muslim women. When religious figures make regressive statements about Muslim women, our identities and our names are turned into political tools. And as a consequence, we are forced to face discrimination and hostility from other quarters as well.

“Stop doing religious politics in our name. Muslim women are not political pawns. Our lives, our choices, and our identities do not belong to politicians, religious leaders, or anyone else to weaponise.

“Islamic history itself tells a different story. Muslim women have been scholars, teachers, entrepreneurs, traders, and active participants in public life. If women could occupy these spaces centuries ago, why are they being pushed back into the home today?

“Muslim women will not be confined by outdated interpretations of our place in society. We will define our own lives, our own choices, and our own futures.”

It had been widely reported in the media, and also in The Hindu, that Kanthapuram A.P. Aboobacker Musliar, known for many as the Grand Mufti of India, recently issued a “joint-circular” to mahallus in his capacity as general secretary of the Samstha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, asking them “not to exhibit women in front of other men on the streets or stages” during Islamic celebrations. Aboobacker Musliar, known for his proximity to various political formations, has been a leading figure in Kerala’s traditional Sunni Muslim community for more than five decades. The widely publicised diktat was reportedly issued in the context of the Milad festivities. Specifically, the circular courted controversy, following which Kanthapuram said bringing women to public forums would cause serious “chaos” and that Islam prescribed purdah for women to prevent this. These comments had been criticised both by the ruling United Democratic Front (UDF)’s leading party, the Indian National Congress (INC) with Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan and the CPI(M), also a long-term ally of the Mufti. Interestingly, the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), a component of the ruling UDF has been silent.

Background

The ‘Grand Mufti’ who is at the centre of this controversy that significant influence extending across India and to Muslim communities abroad. Kanthapuram, Ustad in Kerala, is known as Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad in the wider Muslim world. He is the founder of Jamia Markaz at Karanthur near Kozhikode, around which he has built a large religious, educational and social network. At 89, he continues to teach the Hadith collection regarded by Muslims as the most authentic collection of reports on Prophet Muhammad’s teachings and practices.

Kanthapuram’s rise began within the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama, the traditional body of Islamic scholars in Kerala. He was one of its prominent secretaries under Shamsul Ulama E.K. Aboobacker Musliar. In 1989, differences over the influence of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) led to a split. Kanthapuram and his followers walked out and formed a separate organisation. The division continues, leaving Keralam’s traditional Sunni community broadly divided between the E.K. and A.P. factions. He built his organisation around Markazu Saquafathi Sunniyya, founded at Karanthur in 1978.

His reach extends well beyond politics. He was also been associated with the Amman Message and A Common Word, international initiatives promoting Islamic unity and Muslim-Christian understanding. His organisation has also reportedly used these networks for humanitarian causes. In 2025, he intervened in the case of Kerala nurse Nimisha Priya, who was facing execution in Yemen, and saved her from the gallows through contacts with influential Yemeni religious figures.

Few religious leaders in the southern state of Kerala have remained so influential for decades. From a scholar in Kozhikode to the chief of an international network, Kanthapuram’s influence extends far beyond Karanthur. To his followers, he is a scholar, teacher and institution-builder; to his critics, a conservative cleric with deep influence over public and political life.

The statement by Bebaak collective may be read here.

Related:

Equal Inheritance Rights for Muslim Women: Upholding Constitutional Justice and Gender Equality

Wars Fought in The Name of Women’s Rights

Muslim women need not move court to register divorce by talaq: Kerala High Court

The post Muslim women will define their own lives & choices: Bebaak Collective responds to Kerala cleric appeared first on SabrangIndia.

That is also the nature of Shaheen’s wider ground reporting. Her videos show her going into neighbourhoods and public spaces, documenting local conditions, speaking to people and questioning authorities. Her reporting has focused on issues that are experienced directly by ordinary people rather than remaining within the confines of official briefings.

Her videos on the fire that broke out in Malviya Nagar, Delhi may be viewed below:

According to Shaheen’s written statement, police personnel objected to the recording and attempted to take their phones. Women police personnel were called and the sisters were eventually put into a police vehicle. Shaheen says they were told they would be dropped home but were instead taken to Saket police station.

Detailed report may be read here.

A detailed complaint against named personnel

Shaheen’s written statement is specific about the alleged events at Saket police station. She names SHO Dinesh Kumar and women police personnel including Sonam Solanki and Renuka Chaudhary. She says the sisters were threatened with being put in the lock-up and that the SHO threatened to file multiple FIRs against them. She alleges that when she asked what offence they had committed and said they would cooperate, the threats continued.

She then alleges that Solanki demanded her phone. When Shaheen questioned the basis for taking it, she says the officer snatched it and slapped her. Nafisa was allegedly assaulted as well. The sisters say they were subsequently dragged through the station and taken upstairs. Shaheen alleges that they were pulled by their hair and clothes, slapped, kicked and beaten with a baton. She says she tried to seek help from the SHO before being taken upstairs.

In her interview with Alt News, published on September 7, Shaheen gave substantially the same account, saying that she and Nafisa were dragged upstairs and assaulted for an extended period. She described being slapped, kicked, having her hair pulled and being struck with a baton. Alt News also published photographs showing bruising on Nafisa’s leg and Shaheen’s upper arm.

The allegation of communal abuse

According to her written statement, an incoming call on her forcefully seized phone displayed the name “Mohd. Khan”. Shaheen alleges that the officer saw the caller ID, realised she was Muslim and then made a remark about giving her additional slaps and baton blows. Speaking to Alt News, Shaheen repeated the allegation, saying the officer’s behaviour changed after seeing the name and identifying her as Muslim. She said the assault then intensified and that other women constables were also instructed to beat the sisters.

Sabrangindia has spoken to both sisters and accessed a copy of the criminal complaint.

The sisters described the same sequence in their September 6 interview with Nous Network, titled “Is Being Muslim Our Biggest Crime?” They alleged that they were beaten for roughly 30–40 minutes, including through slaps, kicks, hair-pulling and baton blows, and said the treatment became more severe after the officer allegedly realised that they were Muslim. Nafisa also questioned the relevance of their religion during the alleged assault.

The CCTV evidence

The sisters have repeatedly pointed to CCTV footage as potentially decisive evidence. Shaheen’s written statement identifies the areas through which she says they were dragged and assaulted. In her interview with Alt News, she said CCTV cameras covered parts of the station, including the reception and corridor, and that this footage could establish what happened. She said the room where she alleges the later assault occurred did not have a camera, but the route leading to it did. Article 14 reported that Shaheen and Nafisa were demanding the preservation and release of CCTV footage from Saket police station. The report noted that the women believe the footage could help test their allegations against the police account.

What happened after the alleged assault?

According to Shaheen’s statement, the sisters eventually made their way back to the reception area, where Nafisa collapsed. Shaheen says the police did not arrange for them to contact their family or obtain immediate medical assistance. They eventually contacted relatives and called the police control room. The women were taken to hospital and underwent medical examination before returning to the police station to pursue their complaint.

The medical evidence is now an important part of the case. Videos circulated after the incident showed injuries on the women, while Alt News reported photographs of bruising on Nafisa’s leg and Shaheen’s arm. The Indian Express also reported that a video released by 4PM showed bruises and welts that the women attributed to the alleged assault.

Alt News also spoke to their colleague Neetu, who alleged that the women were not immediately assisted in obtaining an MLC and that police instead sought a compromise. She alleged that the women themselves called the police and went for the medical examination, returning to the station later that night. She further alleged that they remained there for hours without an FIR and were asked to remove two names from their complaint.

Newslaundry reported that Shaheen remained at the police station for hours demanding that an FIR be registered. The report said police accepted the complaint but did not register an FIR. At the time of the publishing of this report, there was still no FIR against the police personnel named by the sisters.

Related:

Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim

Midnight Arrest, Daylight Questions: Why was Santosh Pandit taken into custody?

Days of Demands, Hours of Protest: Swatantra Bhardwaj finally detained in assault case

Pune’s DJ Controversy, Ganeshotsav and Assault: The politics of who gets to make noise

The post Six Days On, Still No FIR: What happened to Shaheen and Nafisa Khan at Saket Police Station? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The violence did not end on the street. Singh was allegedly chased towards his third-floor residence and attacked again. His family heard him screaming. When his son opened the door, he reportedly found several men kicking and punching his father. Singh was eventually taken to hospital with severe injuries. He died the following morning.

A Manipuri music teacher, Chongtham Vikram Singh, living in Delhi’s Ashram area was mob lynched by 8 people following a dispute over alleged noise and nuisance outside his residence.

Police said seven accused have been arrested and a minor detained in connection with the case.… pic.twitter.com/4V0LVeVLiJ

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) September 7, 2026

Delhi, India. A music teacher from Manipur beaten to death at Kilokari under Sunlight colony police station, South Delhi. Chongtham Vikram has been residing in the area for atleast 10years in the area. He objected to loud noises and nuisance created in front of his house. What… pic.twitter.com/CJm0P5ZFAy

— huidrom athouba (@HuidromAthouba) September 7, 2026

The police have arrested seven adults and apprehended a juvenile. The FIR invokes Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita along with Section 3(5). Section 103(2) is particularly significant because it concerns group murder where specified identity-based grounds are alleged.

Singh was a Meitei from Manipur living in Delhi. Northeast community organisations have specifically demanded that the possibility of identity-based targeting be investigated. The North East Media Forum, while acknowledging that the motive remains under investigation, called for any possibility of racial or identity-based targeting to be thoroughly examined, pointing to continuing concerns over discrimination and intimidation faced by people from the Northeast.

According to The Hindu, Singh’s son told police that his father had mentioned being threatened by people associated with the nearby dhaba after earlier complaints about excessive noise. If established, that would make the incident considerably more serious than a spontaneous altercation: it would raise questions about a pattern of intimidation that preceded the fatal assault.

Arrests are not accountability

There is an uncomfortable history behind the reactions from Northeast communities. People from the Northeast living in Delhi have repeatedly spoken about racial stereotyping, slurs, discrimination and violence. That history is precisely why the killing of a Manipuri man inside the national capital cannot be understood only through the immediate trigger alleged by the police.

The Delhi Police have arrested the accused and the administration has promised lawful action. Union Minister Kiren Rijiju has said that a strong chargesheet will be filed within two weeks. The Indian Express reported that CCTV recordings captured the accused leaving the building after the assault and, around ten minutes later, Singh’s family carrying him towards hospital.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge described the killing as a “chilling reminder” of what he called “utter lawlessness” under the BJP government. Congress leader and Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi asked what Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s Ministry of Home Affairs and the Delhi Police were doing to stop what he described as growing lawlessness, particularly against people from the Northeast. Arvind Kejriwal also condemned the killing, while Manipur MP Bimol Akoijam demanded exemplary punishment.

Chongtham Vikram Singh ji, a renowned musician from Manipur, went downstairs to ask some men to lower the noise outside his home. He was beaten to death for it.

A father, killed outside his own home, in his own country’s capital. After many such incidents, every Northeast family…

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) September 8, 2026

The merciless lynching of Chongtham Vikram Singh ji, a well-known musician from Manipur, by a mob is yet another chilling reminder of the utter lawlessness under the BJP.

Students are unsafe. Women face atrocities every day. People from Northeast India face discrimination.… pic.twitter.com/uGfjNCYvbn

— Mallikarjun Kharge (@kharge) September 8, 2026

The senseless murder of renowned musician from Manipur, Chongtham Vikram Singh ji, in the heart of Delhi is a national shame. He was brutally beaten and murdered only for asking some people to make less noise.

Is this what it’s come to? Is there no safety for a young father…

— Priyanka Gandhi Vadra (@priyankagandhi) September 8, 2026

The streets are already asking the question

People gathered outside Sunlight Colony Police Station demanding justice. A candlelight march was held. Northeast student and community organisations condemned the killing. These protests are not simply demands for punishment after a murder. They reflect a deeper anxiety: if a person can be attacked outside his own home after objecting to a disturbance, what protection does an ordinary Northeast resident actually have?

The North East Students’ Society at Delhi University and the North East Media Forum have both demanded a serious and impartial investigation. Their insistence that identity-based targeting be examined is important precisely because the burden of proving whether prejudice played a role lies with the investigation—not with the victim’s community.

A Manipuri (Meitei) music teacher Chongtham Vikram was beaten to death yesterday by at least 6-7 men in Ashram, New Delhi.

The men, allegedly drunk, came to his house and beat him to death after he objected to them over making noise at the night at the dhaba just opposite his… pic.twitter.com/c97JkpC9BV

— Meitei Heritage Society (@meiteiheritage) September 7, 2026

Who was Chongtham Vikram Singh?

Chongtham Vikram Singh was a guitarist associated with Manipur’s early rock music movement, having performed with bands including Ultra Vires, Phoenix and Eastern Dark. He had spent years teaching music in Delhi and had built a life there. He was the son of celebrated Manipuri singer Chongtham Kamala, associated with Matamgi Manipur, widely regarded as the first Manipuri feature film. His cousin Lakshmipriya Devi directed Boong, the first Indian film to win a BAFTA. For nearly 17 years, Delhi was his home.

Related:

Days of Demands, Hours of Protest: Swatantra Bhardwaj finally detained in assault case

Pune’s DJ Controversy, Ganeshotsav and Assault: The politics of who gets to make noise

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim

The post Beaten to Death Outside His Own Home: What Delhi owes Chongtham Vikram Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an important first, the court has directed the Assam government to pay Begum interim compensation of ₹2 lakh. More significantly, however, the judgment raises disturbing questions about the manner in which the Foreigners Tribunal, police and State authorities operated in her case—and whether the machinery of citizenship determination was used to prevent judicial scrutiny rather than facilitate it.

As per the Scroll report, the Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund found that the conduct of the Nagaon Foreigners Tribunal displayed an apparent “malice in law”. The court went further, holding that the State machinery had acted “in tandem” to prevent Begum from exercising her right to approach the High Court against the tribunal’s order.

The case therefore goes beyond an individual error by a tribunal. It exposes what can happen when the determination of citizenship, detention and expulsion operate in close succession, leaving the person concerned with little or no practical opportunity to seek judicial protection.

A case that should never have reached deportation

Begum’s ordeal began decades before her eventual expulsion. As reported by Scroll, she was marked as a ‘D’ or doubtful voter in 1997, following a revision of electoral rolls in Assam. According to Scroll, around three lakh voters were disenfranchised during that process, with many subsequently referred by the border police to Foreigners Tribunals. Begum’s citizenship case then moved through the familiar and often exhausting cycle of tribunal proceedings and judicial challenges.

In 2017, the Nagaon Foreigners Tribunal ruled against her. She challenged that decision before the Gauhati High Court, which ordered a retrial. She returned to the tribunal, where she was again declared a foreigner. Begum challenged the decision once more in 2019. This time, the High Court found that the tribunal had failed to properly consider the evidence she had produced and directed it to reconsider the matter.

That direction should have meant another opportunity for the tribunal to examine the evidence and reach a fresh decision in accordance with law. Instead, the proceedings took a deeply troubling turn.

Arrested when she appeared to defend her case

On May 30, Begum appeared before the Nagaon Foreigners Tribunal pursuant to the High Court’s directions. According to the account reported by Scroll, rather than receiving a substantive reconsideration of her case, she was declared a foreigner and arrested within minutes of appearing before the tribunal. Her lawyers alleged that she was not even supplied a copy of the order—an omission that had obvious consequences because without knowing the contents of the order, challenging it became practically impossible. The High Court subsequently scrutinised the sequence of events surrounding her arrest.

Begum’s family said she appeared before the tribunal at around 12.30 pm and was arrested roughly half an hour later. As Scroll reported, the tribunal judge disputed this account. The Nagaon Superintendent of Police also told the court that the border police had arrested her near the tribunal premises at around 2 pm. But the High Court was not persuaded by the competing explanations.

The court reasoned that if Begum had actually been informed, even orally, that she had been declared a foreigner, there would have been little reason for her to remain around the tribunal premises during the period in which the police were able to take her into custody. That observation goes to the heart of the case.

The question was not simply whether Begum had been declared a foreigner. It was whether the process had been deliberately structured in such a way that she could be removed before she could challenge that declaration.

The right to appeal cannot be defeated by detention

The High Court’s most serious finding concerns precisely this issue. According to the court, the tribunal judge had “deliberately and wilfully delayed” issuing the order in a manner that enabled Begum to be arrested, moved to the Matia detention centre and subsequently expelled from India. The court concluded that the State machinery had thereby prevented her from exhausting her legal remedies and from approaching the High Court through a writ petition.

This is crucial. A tribunal’s declaration that a person is a foreigner does not, by itself, erase the constitutional right to challenge the decision. A legal system cannot meaningfully provide a remedy if the person concerned be removed from the country before she can access that remedy. The problem becomes particularly stark in citizenship cases, where the consequences of an adverse order can include detention, separation from family and eventual expulsion. The right to judicial review cannot become merely theoretical.

The tribunal’s conduct under scrutiny

The court did not confine its criticism to the consequences of the tribunal’s order. It questioned the circumstances in which the order itself came into existence. The High Court directed Assam’s Home and Political Department to investigate the date and time on which the tribunal member had prepared the opinion, Scroll reported. If necessary, the authorities were even directed to seize the tribunal member’s computer to establish when the order had been prepared.

The High Court also criticised the tribunal judge, Bipul Kumar Nath, saying that he appeared to have developed a personal grudge because the matter had earlier been remanded to him for fresh consideration. The issue, therefore, was not simply procedural irregularity. The court was examining whether the process had been manipulated to produce a particular outcome—and to ensure that outcome could not be challenged in time.

Expulsion before legal remedies were exhausted

The court also pointed to the safeguards governing expulsion. As reported by Scroll, the High Court found that Begum was denied an opportunity to challenge the May 30 order, which it described as a direct violation of the applicable standard operating procedure under the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950. The procedure requires legal remedies available to a person to be exhausted before expulsion. That safeguard is not a technicality.

Expulsion is an irreversible act with potentially devastating consequences. Once a person is pushed across an international border, access to Indian courts, lawyers, documents and family becomes infinitely more difficult. In Begum’s case, that is precisely what appears to have happened. Her family discovered that she had been expelled only after approaching the Gauhati High Court with a habeas corpus petition. The court subsequently involved the Ministry of External Affairs and indicated that efforts should be made to locate Begum in Bangladesh and bring her back to India.

Article 21 does not stop at citizenship

One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the High Court’s invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that the protection of life and personal liberty extends not only to Indian citizens but also to non-citizens. In other words, even a person whom the State treats as a foreign national does not become a person without constitutional protection. This principle is particularly significant in Assam, where citizenship status has become deeply intertwined with detention, deportation and political debates about migration.

The constitutional question cannot simply be reduced to whether a person has successfully established citizenship. Even where the State claims that an individual is a foreign national, the State must still act according to law. It cannot imprison a person without due process, suppress an available remedy, conceal an order from the person affected, or remove her from the country before she has had a genuine opportunity to challenge the decision.

₹2 lakh is compensation—but the judgment is about much more

The ₹2 lakh compensation ordered by the High Court should not obscure the larger significance of the case as the Gauhati High Court has also attempted to ensure that what happened to Begum is not repeated. It directed the Superintendent of Police in every district of Assam to ensure that a person declared a foreign national is informed of the tribunal’s judgment before being taken into custody. It further directed that an adult member of the person’s family should be informed before the detainee is moved outside the jurisdiction of the district police.

These directions are significant because they recognise a basic principle of procedural fairness: a person must know what has been decided against them before the State takes away their liberty.

Family notification is equally important. In citizenship and detention cases, the disappearance of a family member can leave relatives with no information about where the person has been taken or whether they remain in the country.

The High Court has effectively drawn a line: a declaration of foreigner status does not authorise the State to bypass due process. The State cannot convert a tribunal order into an immediate mechanism of disappearance. It cannot use detention to defeat the right of appeal. And it cannot treat the absence of citizenship status as the absence of constitutional rights.

Related:

From Statelessness to Citizenship: CJP helps Adori Bibi reclaim her Indian identity

Nationality Before Deportation: The Rajubala Das case

Aadhaar, Voter ID and PAN Cannot Prove Citizenship: Calcutta High Court’s Foreigners Order and the burden of belonging

Another CJP Victory: Barpeta Tribunal declares Alam Khan ‘not a foreigner’

The post Declared ‘Foreigner’, denied a hearing, pushed across the border: Gauhati HC pulls up Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pandit was picked up from his Kothrud residence at around 1 a.m., shortly after a second complaint was filed over videos in which he allegedly made obscene, sexually coloured and defamatory remarks while targeting Maharashtra cabinet minister Chandrakant Patil, BJP corporator Mitali Salvekar and Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. A local Pune court, on September 3, sent Pandit into police custody till September 8, as per The Wire. The extraordinary speed and manner of the police response cannot be divorced from the political context in which Pandit was arrested: he had been using his large social-media following to publicly question politicians over roads, civic infrastructure, alleged misuse of power and the preferential treatment routinely enjoyed by the politically connected. That is where the real controversy begins.

The issue is not whether Pandit is “above the law”. He is not. The issue is whether the law suddenly becomes exceptionally efficient when the accused is a vocal critic of those in power— and markedly less, urgent when allegations are directed at the powerful themselves.  Pandit’s arrest therefore cannot be examined merely through the language of the FIR. It has to be examined through the larger pattern of policing dissent in Maharashtra: who is investigated, who is arrested, whose speech is treated as an urgent threat, and whose conduct is tolerated despite repeated complaints.

From civic critic to criminal accused

Pandit has built a substantial following by turning everyday failures of governance into highly visible social-media campaigns. His videos routinely focus on potholes, poor-quality infrastructure, traffic violations and what he describes as preferential treatment for politicians and other VIPs. His YouTube channel, launched in 2022, has grown to more than a million subscribers. Some of his videos have attracted millions of views.

One of his widely circulated videos showed him pursuing a vehicle carrying an allegedly illegal number plate, confronting the driver and approaching the police to demand action. The video eventually showed the vehicle owner apologising and agreeing to correct the violation. Pandit’s activism, however, increasingly brought him into direct confrontation with political figures.

On August 31, he uploaded a video in which he confronted BJP MLC Gopichand Padalkar, a close associate of Chief Minister Fadnavis, over an allegedly non-compliant high-security registration plate and the absence of seat belts. The video reportedly crossed 6.8 million views. Pandit subsequently claimed that he had received threats from persons associated with Padalkar.

This was not the first time he had alleged threats following his criticism of BJP leaders. Earlier, he had claimed that BJP workers had threatened him after he criticised Maharashtra minister and senior BJP leader Chandrakant Patil. Then came the complaints—and, within days, the arrest.

Two complaints, one arrest

A complaint was first lodged on August 31 by BJP corporator Sunil Pande, reportedly an associate of Chandrakant Patil, over Pandit’s alleged remarks against the minister. A second complaint was subsequently filed at Kothrud Police Station by a 36-year-old Pune Municipal Corporation sanitation worker.

According to The Indian Express, the woman alleged that she had encountered videos in which Pandit made objectionable remarks concerning Patil and a woman corporator. She also referred to another video in which Pandit allegedly used obscene language while questioning Chief Minister Fadnavis over the quality of road-laying work.

The Wire, which reviewed a copy of the FIR, reported that Pandit was booked under Sections 75(1)(iv), 75(3), 356(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The provisions invoked relate, among other things, to sexually coloured remarks, sexual harassment, defamation, intentional insult and the electronic transmission or publication of allegedly obscene material.

Pandit’s lawyer, advocate Wahed Khan, disputes the characterisation of his client’s language as sexually suggestive. He has argued that the words were being interpreted out of context and were expressions used in everyday parlance.

Why a 1 a.m. arrest?

According to Pandit’s lawyer, police arrived at his home around 12.30 a.m. and took him away. The FIR was registered at Kothrud Police Station at approximately 1.18 a.m. A local court subsequently remanded Pandit to police custody until September 8. The timing has become one of the most contentious aspects of the case.

Khan has argued that the police failed to follow the safeguards governing arrests for offences carrying relatively limited maximum sentences. He specifically invoked Section 35 of the BNSS and the Supreme Court’s safeguards in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, arguing that a notice to cooperate with the investigation should ordinarily precede arrest where the statutory conditions require it. He further alleged that police issued a notice only after Pandit had already been taken into custody.

Police, however, have maintained that Pandit had previously been served a notice to cooperate with the investigation.

The most uncomfortable aspect of the Pandit case is therefore not simply the language allegedly used by him. It is the apparent disparity in the State’s response to allegations involving different categories of people. An analysis published by The Wire found that 13 of the 39 ministers in the Maharashtra cabinet had serious criminal charges registered against them. BJP minister Nitesh Rane alone had 38 FIRs, according to the newspaper, including 20 concerning alleged hate speeches directed at Muslims involving abuse and threats of violence.

Every third minister in Maha has serious charges. One alone has 20 pending FIRs for hate speech.

But none of them face action. #SantoshPandit made viral videos highlighting VIP treatment, traffic violations. Within an hour of FIR against him, he was arrested.

For @thewire_in pic.twitter.com/kXSOycfP0j

— Kunal Purohit (@kunalpurohit) September 6, 2026

The contrast is nevertheless legitimate grounds for public scrutiny. If the police can act with extraordinary speed when a social-media activist is accused of making obscene remarks about a minister and a woman politician, citizens are entitled to ask why comparable urgency is not always visible when allegations of inflammatory, abusive or threatening speech are levelled against powerful political actors.

Opposition cries foul

The arrest has already drawn criticism from opposition parties. NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar) spokesperson Anish Gawande described the 1 a.m. arrest as an instance of political intimidation and questioned the alleged failure to comply with Section 35 of the BNSS and the Arnesh Kumar safeguards.

I have formally written to the Pune DCP Crime Gauhar Hasan regarding the 1 AM arrest of activist Santosh Pandit.

Executing a midnight raid on a citizen for criticising the government without serving a mandatory notice under Sec 35 BNSS, Arnesh Kumar guidelines & Maharashtra… pic.twitter.com/CImixr4kX7

— Anish Gawande (@anishgawande) September 3, 2026

Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal also criticised the action, asking whether the Modi-Fadnavis government was using police power to intimidate those who question the government.

A protest was held at Kalakar Katta on Fergusson College Road in Shivajinagar, Pune, demanding justice for Santosh Pandit and Vidyanand Bapat.

Citizens and activists gathered under the banner of Jagruk Punekar, raising slogans and calling for justice for both individuals.… pic.twitter.com/Uqzz2pdn1v

— Punekar News (@punekarnews) September 4, 2026

The midnight arrest of civic activist and social media influencer Santosh Pandit has escalated into a major political face-off in Pune, with the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) strongly condemning the police action. NCP (SP) youth leader Mehboob Shaikh visited… pic.twitter.com/OLET1R3r6w

— Pune Mirror (@ThePuneMirror) September 4, 2026

The politics behind the videos

Pandit’s own public trajectory adds another dimension to the controversy. In a podcast cited by The Wire, Pandit spoke about losing his travel business and home following the economic fallout from the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. He said that the experience left him angry and looking for an opportunity to challenge the government.

He subsequently supported Narendra Modi and campaigned for the BJP in 2014. Over time, however, he became increasingly disillusioned with the party and began directing his criticism at what he saw as failures of governance and the misuse of political power.  Much of Pandit’s online work is built around an extremely basic civic proposition: politicians and public officials should follow the rules that ordinary citizens are expected to follow. His confrontation with Padalkar over a number plate is precisely the kind of incident that can be uncomfortable for political establishments because it collapses the distance between the ordinary citizen and the political VIP.

Meet Santosh Pandit:

-Known for exposing civic scams, potholes.
-Exposing bad roads and VIP rule-breaking in Pune
-Regularly questioned ministers and government loopholes on camera
-Arrested at 1 AM after videos targeting a Maharashtra minister and corporator

So they… pic.twitter.com/eikjRT5hF1

— ʀᴀᴍ (@ramdevkar07) September 4, 2026

A telling video by activist Santosh Pandit from Pune:

While ordinary people struggle, a BJP leader who holds no posts, nor is an elected representative, is accompanied by police cars and is given the VIP treatment. Why @MahaPolice?
pic.twitter.com/OwlwmcZAv1

— Kunal Purohit (@kunalpurohit) September 2, 2026

Related:

Pune’s DJ Controversy, Ganeshotsav and Assault: The politics of who gets to make noise

Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim

Maharashtra SIR draft rolls leave 2.07 crore electors out; Pune records highest exclusions at 28.66 lakh

Mumbai’s everyday life is getting costlier, one essential at a time

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

The post Midnight Arrest, Daylight Questions: Why was Santosh Pandit taken into custody? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bhardwaj was traced to Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh and detained by a Delhi Police Crime Branch team on September 4 afternoon, hours after representatives of the CJP, Nishu Azad, Congress workers and MPs Chandrashekhar Azad and Pappu Yadav gathered at the police station demanding action. The detention followed a FIR and police assurance to the protesting delegation that Bhardwaj would be arrested within 72 hours. He was detained by UP police.

Finally, Delhi Police have registered an FIR against the Sanghi goon and said he will be arrested within 72 hours.

It took two months and a protest just to get an FIR registered for a hate crime that happened right in front of the police.

POLICE DEPARTMENT THIK KARO!

— Abhijeet Dipke (@abhijeet_dipke) September 4, 2026

#Announcement

From Day 1, we have not let any student or protester fight this battle alone.

Nishu’s father Sanjay ji’s case is harrowing. Gang members like Swatantra Bhardwaj are openly flaunting that they attempted murder on Sanjay ji who was simply peacefully protesting…

— Saurav Das (@SauravDassss) September 3, 2026

According to The Indian Express, the police team traced Bhardwaj to Bulandshahr after he travelled there earlier in the day. The Times of India reported that he had stayed at a local resident’s house in Naithla village and left on a motorcycle after his presence became known. Police subsequently tracked him down and took him into custody. The detention came after Bhardwaj himself appeared in a widely circulated podcast discussing the alleged assault and claiming that political connections had helped him avoid jail.

The case began at a CJP protest at Jantar Mantar

The controversy began during a CJP protest at Jantar Mantar, where Nishu Azad, then a 14-year-old student protester, was participating. Her father, Sanjay Kumar, was at the protest site when a confrontation allegedly broke out. According to the FIR-based account reported in the material provided, Kumar was recording the proceedings on his phone when he was questioned by a young man about making a video. An argument followed, after which two or three people allegedly joined in and assaulted him. Kumar alleged that he was punched on the head and struck with a kada or bracelet-like object.

He was taken to RML Hospital for treatment. The medical record referred to two deep wounds on his head. Lawyer Feroz Gama, who said he witnessed the incident, told The Indian Express that he took Kumar to hospital and that Kumar received stitches for his injuries. The precise nature of the injuries subsequently became one of the central points of dispute in the case.

While Kumar’s supporters and CJP described the assault as serious, Delhi Police said the injuries were simple in nature. Police rejected claims that Kumar had suffered a skull fracture and said that the injury was caused during a scuffle involving the kada worn by one of the accused, as reported by The Indian Express.

Detailed reports on brute force used by police on the protestors may be read here, here, here and here.

Bhardwaj was initially detained—but not arrested

The first police response to the alleged assault became one of the most troubling aspects of the case. Delhi Police said Swatantra Bhardwaj and another accused, Suraj Kumar, were detained at the protest site, questioned and served notices. But after that, they were not arrested and were allowed to remain out of custody while the case proceeded.

For Nishu Azad’s family and CJP, that was not an adequate response to an alleged assault that had left her father with serious head injuries. The question they raised was straightforward: if the accused had been identified and detained at the scene, why was there no immediate custodial action? And why did the initial FIR omit the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the family’s demand that the caste dimension of the alleged attack be formally recognised?

देखिए, स्वतंत्र भारद्वाज अपना बचाव इस तरह कर रहे थे पापा के सर पर कड़ा मरते हुए सेल्फ डिफेंस कर रहे हैं स्वतंत्र.. pic.twitter.com/DkB6geSsHl

— Nishu Aazad (@Nishuazad11) September 4, 2026

A podcast puts the case back in the spotlight

The case returned to the headlines after excerpts from a lengthy podcast featuring Bhardwaj began circulating widely. In the interview, Bhardwaj appeared to speak about the confrontation with Sanjay Kumar and claimed that he had “cracked” his skull. He also spoke about how he had not been jailed after the incident. Notably, he invoked the names of political figures while describing his connections. Bhardwaj referred to Delhi minister Kapil Mishra and Union minister Chirag Paswan as “elder brothers” and also invoked Prime Minister Narendra Modi while speaking about his political support.

वीडियो में साफ़ सुन सकते हैं कि स्वतंत्र भारद्वाज खुद अपने किए की बात कबूल कर रहा है। दिल्ली पुलिस को इससे ज्यादा क्या सबूत चाहिए? अब कानून के तहत सख्त कार्रवाई होनी चाहिए।@DelhiPolice @PSParliamentSt @ChandrashekharAzad @RahulGandhi#स्वतंत्रभारद्वाज #DelhiPolice #Justice pic.twitter.com/Zn9dQnjSu4

— Nishu Aazad (@Nishuazad11) September 5, 2026

When demands for his arrest started being made, Bhardwaj later disputed his own words. He claimed that he had acted in self-defence after being surrounded by a group of people and said his references to political leaders were sarcastic. Delhi Police, too, rejected allegations that political pressure had prevented his arrest. But the video fundamentally changed the public conversation around the case.

The allegations were no longer based only on what the victim, witnesses or protesters said had happened. The accused himself had publicly discussed the confrontation and his alleged political connections, creating a fresh basis for demands that the police revisit the matter.

CJP takes the issue back to the police station

CJP responded by organising a fresh protest outside the Parliament Street police station. The organisation’s representatives Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, along with supporters, went to the police station demanding Bhardwaj’s arrest and stronger charges. CJP had been involved from the beginning because the alleged assault took place during its protest. The organisation’s campaign subsequently became the mechanism through which the demand for police action was kept alive after the initial detention and release of the accused.

CJP demanded the addition of provisions relating to attempt to murder, criminal intimidation and the SC/ST Act. It also raised the issue of threats and online abuse directed at Nishu following the controversy. The protest brought Nishu and her father back to the police station as well.

@Cockroachisback @SauravDassss @AshutoshRanka A special thank you to you both as well for providing us with such strong and capable lawyers who are working hard to make our case as strong as possible. Me and my father truly appreciate your support…

— Nishu Aazad (@Nishuazad11) September 4, 2026

Congress joins Nishu and CJP

The mobilisation soon widened beyond CJP. Indian Youth Congress Delhi president Akshay Lakra joined Nishu at the police station and demanded action against Bhardwaj. Congress also provided legal assistance. According to the reports, the AICC legal department deputed a team of lawyers led by Rishabh Ranjan to assist Nishu and her family with the matter. The legal intervention focused not only on the assault case but also on the threats allegedly directed at Nishu after the incident.

मेरे बुरे वक़्त में मुझे जान से मारने की धमकी मिल रही थी उस समय मेरे साथ एवेंजर्स की तरह साथ देने वाले एडवोकेट्स, उनकी पूरी टीम को धन्यवाद
Sr Adv & Member of Parliament Shri @DrAMSinghvi Sir & AICC Law Dept
Ayesha, @Lawyermdkhan @omarhoda46@rishav_ranjan18 @akshaylakra17 & ors

— Nishu Aazad (@Nishuazad11) September 5, 2026

मुझे आशा नहीं थी कि @RahulGandhi जी की सच में ट्वीट करेंगे अब मुझे राहुल गांधी जी जैसे बड़े नेता का साथ मिल चुका है अब मुझे न्याय मिल कर रहेगा और स्वतंत्र भारद्वाज जेल जाकर रहेंगे.. https://t.co/t055GHxOAY

— Nishu Aazad (@Nishuazad11) September 3, 2026

This became an increasingly important part of the case because Nishu said she had faced rape threats, abuse and online harassment, including the circulation of objectionable or morphed images. She said the harassment had affected her education and that she had stopped attending school for several weeks.

Chandrashekhar Azad and Pappu Yadav join the protest

The protest then drew two opposition MPs. Chandrashekhar Azad, Nagina MP and president of the Azad Samaj Party, reached Parliament Street police station and joined the delegation. He questioned why Bhardwaj had not been arrested despite the video in which he appeared to discuss the alleged assault. Azad also raised the threats allegedly directed at Nishu, including threats of rape, acid attack and death.

मेरे @BhimArmyChief बड़े भाई ने जिस तरह से मेरा हाथ पकड़ा है ना हमें उससे कोई मतलब नहीं है कि मेरे बड़े भाई मेरे साथ है, आखिरी दम तक साथ खड़े है.. pic.twitter.com/CxYLf6k7qy

— Nishu Aazad (@Nishuazad11) September 4, 2026

Pappu Yadav, the Independent MP from Purnia, subsequently joined the protesters and sat with them outside the police station. He spoke about violence against women and Dalits and held up the Constitution while demanding action. Their involvement marked a significant expansion of the mobilisation: what had begun as CJP’s campaign over an alleged assault during its protest was now being taken up directly by elected representatives.

बीजेपी का आतंकी स्वतंत्र भारद्वाज को बंदी
बनाने से ही न्याय नहीं होगा बल्कि, उसे स्पीडी
ट्रायल से उम्र क़ैद भी हो!

वहीं उसे बीजेपी सरकार में किस-किस का
संरक्षण प्राप्त है, गृह मंत्री अमित शाह समेत
सबकी जांच होकर उन पर कठोर कार्रवाई हो! pic.twitter.com/gN2tygKwrl

— Rajesh Ranjan Pappu Yadav (@pappuyadavjapl) September 4, 2026

The New Indian Express reported that the CJP delegation, joined by Chandrashekhar Azad and Pappu Yadav, demanded both the attempt-to-murder and SC/ST Act provisions and an FIR over the threats allegedly made against Nishu.

Police add the SC/ST Act and other provisions

After negotiations at the police station, Delhi Police agreed to add provisions under the SC/ST Act to the case. The police also added provisions relating to criminal intimidation and other offences under the BNS. The question of attempt to murder was more complicated. Police indicated that the applicability of the provision would have to be assessed in light of the medical evidence and investigation into the nature of Kumar’s injuries. This was an important shift from the police’s initial position.

The police had earlier described Kumar’s injury as simple and rejected claims of a skull fracture. After the renewed protest, however, the FIR was expanded to include the SC/ST Act and additional criminal provisions.

A separate FIR was also registered after Nishu complained about the threats and online harassment she had allegedly received. The new case invoked provisions of the POCSO Act, along with BNS provisions and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

Nishu asks for protection

As the protest continued, Nishu also raised concerns about her own safety. She said she did not know when or where she could be attacked and asked for protection for herself and her family. Hindustan Times reported her concern that she was living under a continuing threat after the controversy surrounding the assault and the subsequent online abuse.

Her position became an important part of the renewed campaign because the case had by then moved beyond the alleged assault on her father. It had expanded into allegations of intimidation and sexual threats against a teenage protester herself.

It was at this stage that Rahul Gandhi, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, publicly intervened. Nishu had appealed to Gandhi for support, saying that she had lost faith in the police response. Gandhi responded publicly, assuring her that she should not panic and that he stood with her. He questioned why Bhardwaj remained free despite the statements attributed to him in the viral video.

निशु, घबराने की ज़रूरत नहीं है। मैं तुम्हारे साथ हूँ।

साफ है कि तुम्हें इसलिए निशाना बनाया गया क्योंकि तुम अपने समुदाय और छात्रों के हक़ की आवाज़ उठाती हो।

अमित शाह की दिल्ली पुलिस एक तरफ़ छात्रों के साथ अमानवीय बर्बरता करती है। दूसरी तरफ़ एक दलित लड़की के पिता का सिर फोड़ने… https://t.co/m1mgH655hw

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) September 3, 2026

Gandhi also directly questioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah about the alleged political protection claimed by Bhardwaj. His intervention brought the case substantially greater national political attention.

Support also came from across political parties, with the Aam Aadmi Party, Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress questioning the alleged political protection being claimed by Bhardwaj.

आज कौशांबी के समाजवादी पार्टी सांसद @Pushpendra_MP_ जी से बात हुई। उन्होंने हर संभव साथ देने की बात कही, जिसके लिए उनका हृदय से बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद। pic.twitter.com/TMG5L25ljW

— Nishu Aazad (@Nishuazad11) September 5, 2026

@RahulGandhi @BhimArmyChief @yadavakhilesh @ArvindKejriwal @CJP_for_India
Thankk uuu so muchh pic.twitter.com/bY5c3y1fvf

— Nishu Aazad (@Nishuazad11) September 3, 2026

Chirag Paswan files his own complaint

The political claims made by Bhardwaj also prompted a response from one of the people he had named. Union Minister and Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) chief Chirag Paswan filed a complaint with the Parliament Street police against Bhardwaj, objecting to the alleged misuse of his name.

As reported by The Hindu, Paswan’s complaint sought an FIR and strict action against Bhardwaj and asked that it be formally recorded that neither Paswan nor the LJP (Ram Vilas) had any connection with him or with the incident. Paswan said that Bhardwaj had falsely invoked his name to create an impression of political protection and called for an impartial investigation.

Have you observed this disturbing pattern? The more you abuse Muslims, target Dalits, spew hatred make derogatory remarks about a community and sexualize women, the more access you seem to get to the top leaders of a particular ideology. Unfortunately, Such conduct is rewarded… https://t.co/TaCINb4Nlm pic.twitter.com/HxpCShegug

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) September 3, 2026

Police trace him to Bulandshahr

While the political and public pressure was mounting in Delhi, police began looking for Bhardwaj. He had travelled to Bulandshahr, where reports said he stayed with a local resident in Naithla village.

According to India Today, Bhardwaj fled the village after police began looking for him. The Times of India reported that he left on a motorcycle after media attention around his presence increased. Police teams eventually traced him and detained him.

The Indian Express reported that Crime Branch officers took him into custody at around 2 pm on Friday. The arrest/detention therefore came on the same day as the CJP-led mobilisation at Parliament Street.

Related:

Maharashtra’s schools are struggling to survive as students protest, infrastructure crumbles and Marathi-medium institutions disappear

After NEET protests ended, the battle moved online: Women protesters face threats, doxing and criminalisation

Bihar: Not just Delhi, Patna, Siwan too saw brute police violence against demonstrating students: PUCL

Maharashtra: After backlash, govt. moves to withdraw FIRs against student protesters but questions remain

Water Cannons Instead of Answers: Bihar’s recruitment crisis and the state’s crackdown on protest

Amnesty Investigation finds unlawful and deadly force against CJP-led protesters in Delhi and Siwan

The Supreme Court’s Uneasy Middle Path on Protest Policing

Governments begin rolling back cases against protesters, but questions over violence, arrests and accountability remain

July 2026: A dissent that was brutally put down, a crackdown after the protest ended

The post Days of Demands, Hours of Protest: Swatantra Bhardwaj finally detained in assault case appeared first on SabrangIndia.